The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Shareef Unnisa, Wo Late Mirza Maqbool Baig, Aged 62 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H. No. 19- 2- 211231541N4, Basharath Nagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad - 500064. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENTiDEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that tn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings against the Petitio ners/Accu sed No.1 and 2 in CC NO. 371 ol 2025 in Crime No. 154 of 2025 dated 27-08-2025 on the file of Kalapathar Police Station, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petitlon under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay/Quash all further proceedings of the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2 in CC NO.371 ot 2025 in CRIME No.154 of 2025 dated 27 -08-2025 on lhe file of Kalapathar, Police Station, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Mohd Hamed, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla' Additional Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1/State. The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA t) :Vl EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13394 OF 2C25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking o quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused N: s.'1 and 2 in C C No 371 of 2025 pending on the file of learned I pecial Judicial ltlagistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Ci rndhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the peti :i >ners is under Section 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya !; rnhita, 2023 2 Heard Sri Mohd. Hamed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jither der Rao Veeramalla, learned Ari litional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 -State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners ; rbmitted that respondent No.2-de facto complainant is the motlr:r of petitioner No.1 and nrotl-rer-in-law of petitioner No.2; that ti :re are famtly disputes with regard to partition of the joint fs6i , property and thus, to harass the petitioners herein, respon j :nt No 2 has lodged the complaint to Settle the matter pending c,r civrl side. He further submitted that though the offence allege C against the petitioners IS non-cognizable in nature, the police have straightaway registered the F.l.R., without ar y preliminary J; enquiry. Therefore, he prayed lo quash the proceedings in the 2 ETD,J Crl.P.No. l3i9'1 of 2025 C.C.No.371 of 202b against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the polrce have requested the learned Magistrate to accord permission and on obtaining permission, the case has been registered. Thus, there is no infirmity in the legal procedure followed by the prosecution in registering the F.l.R. He further submitted that the prosecution could gather enough material to prove the case against the petitioners herein. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The recitals of the charge sheet point out that respondent No.2-de facto complainant was gifted with the subject property by her late husband and that subsequenfly, she has allotted three separate portions to her children and relained one portron to herself anC requested her sons, including petilioner No. t herein, to conti'ibute monthly amount for her maintenance. But petitioner No.1 and his wife i.e., petitioner No.2 never paid any amount and further, constantly harassed her and abused her in filthy language with an intention to grab the entire property and has ill{reated her by using foul and threatening language. ,-.," ==ry / EI'D,] t'].No I 119.1 ol'l0li 7 Thus, the mother of petitioner No.1 has lodge C the present complaint allegirrg that the petitioners herein have rarassed her, abused her and also intimidated her. They have : so posed life threats to her. l-he petitioners' counsel contends thz t a false case is registered against the petitioners; that there is I r evidence to prove the offence alleged against the petitioners hert :in and that it is a family dtspute. But, the recitals of the charge s reet point out that ample rraterial is collected by the prosecuticr to prove the offence alleged against the petitioners. LW.2 is list :d as an eye- witness to the alleged incident. The veracity o1 he witnesses needs to be tested during the course of trral. Henct , it is deemed appropriate to clispose of the Criminal Petition by ri spensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Col rt. B Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispose: of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before I re trial Court provided they are represented by a counsel beforrl the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before lhe trial Court whenever their presence is required during the cou r ;e of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V.KAVITHA D: )UTY REGISTRAR I/TRUE COPY// \l JECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Spl Judrcial Magistrate of First Class, for Excise casE i at Gandhi Bhavan' Hyderabad j I The Station House Officer, Kalapathar Police Station, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri.Mohd Hamed, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad IOUT] Two CD Copies. 3 4 5 PSK /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 ///t t .s- s1:. \..-.\\

4. / 0 4 t:[ 2025 ORDER CRLP.No.13394 of 2025 DISPOSED OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIOI\